Re: A daring assumption (was Re: East Timor and all that.)

[Greg Schofield <gschofield@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 01:04  22/05/01 -0400, you wrote:
>En relación a Re: A daring assumption (was Re: East Timor and a,
>el 21 May 01, a las 9:56, Greg Schofield dijo:
>
> > Imperialism [...] is a different beast to the promiscuous
> > bourgeoisie, through the state it balances, plans and schemes and
> > veils the lot in secrecy. The dominant group in Australia which does
> > this, the general HQ of petty Australian imperialism is not the
> > government, nor Foreign affairs which it works through but an
> > extra-military intelligence organisation (that is not integrated
> > into the army but mostly composed of officially retired military
> > officers).
>
>Enticing. Any similitude with the role of the British Admiralty?

Got it in one.

Australia is apparently totally enmeshed in US strategic plans, but the
heart of operations is very British orientated (I know the Empire should
have vanished long ago but the truth is aspects still operate in a
traditional way). The two things go together, I am not denying that, but
certain qualities are maintained and these I believe give the dominant
character to particulars.

Like the British Admiralty the formal definition of role is only a part of
the puzzle - apparently Britain was really pissed that the American's
engineered a coup (1975) on their patch, likewise Grenda pleased then not
at all. What has only become clear to me over the past decade is that there
exists a shadowy organisation within military intelligence which seems to
do a lot of co-ordination both domestically and in our region.

One day the archives will be opened and I may get a chance to see how much
is rumour and how much is real.

Greg Schofield
Perth Australia